[2026:RJ-JP:142] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12588/2011 Shri Lal Yadav Son of Shri Ram Devji, aged about 62 years, R/o Near Railway Station, Sarari, Bhilwara, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through The Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 2. The Collector, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhil Simlote with Mr. Dikshant Jain & Mr. Ashvini Raj Tanwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Umesh Choudhary with Ms. Vijay Laxmi on behalf of Mr. Vidyadhar Gathala, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 06/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against penalty order of dismissal dated 20.08.1991 passed by the Collector (Land Records), Ajmer as well as order dated 20.07.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against penalty order has been dismissed. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Patwari on 07.09.1968. After rendering services of 19 years, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.10.1987 in contemplation of departmental inquiry. One charge- sheet dated 29.12.1987/31.01.1988 was served upon the petitioner levelling as many as 8 charges against the petitioner and inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services [2026:RJ-JP:142] (2 of 8) [CW-12588/2011] (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'Rules of 1958') was proposed. The petitioner did not file any reply to the charge-sheet, thereafter Inquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 22.03.1988. In the meanwhile, vide order dated 31.01.1988 suspension of the petitioner was revoked. 3. Even before the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner did not appear and participate in the inquiry proceedings. Under such circumstances, ex-parte inquiry report dated 05.10.1988 was submitted by the Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority. After receiving the report of Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority granted opportunity of hearing to the petitioner vide notice dated 13.12.1988. Despite service of notice, petitioner did not avail the opportunity, thereafter the second show-cause notice dated 07.09.1990 was issued to the petitioner, however, when the petitioner did not respond, the Disciplinary Authority after concurring with the findings of the Inquiry Officer passed penalty order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. Thereafter, the petitioner filed departmental appeal before the Appellant Authority. However, by the time, the Officer who issued the charge-sheet to the petitioner was promoted as Divisional Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority and he himself decided the appeal filed by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4692/1998 before this Court which was decided vide order dated 01.11.2006, wherein the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to hear the matter afresh and to pass order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. But simultaneously a finding was also [2026:RJ-JP:142] (3 of 8) [CW-12588/2011] given that this Court did not want to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 4. Feeling aggrieved by such finding, the petitioner approached Division Bench of this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.392/2007 (Shri Lal Yadav Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.) in which the observations made by learned Single Judge affirming the findings or the view of Disciplinary Authority were set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority by restoring the appeal with directions to pass a fresh order without being influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Bench. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority with a request to decide the appeal afresh which has also been rejected vide order dated 20.07.2009. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have utterly overlooked the mandatory provisions of the Rules of 1958 in as much as that there was serious violation on the part of the Disciplinary Authority, where he did not furnish copy of inquiry report to the petitioner so as to provide an opportunity to make a representation against the findings of Inquiry Officer. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that on account of ailment, the petitioner could not participate in the inquiry proceedings and could not lead his evidence in his defence, therefore, not furnishing copy of inquiry report to the petitioner has caused him prejudice for the reason that he was deprived of his statutory right to make a representation against the findings of Inquiry Officer. [2026:RJ-JP:142] (4 of 8) [CW-12588/2011] 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this fact that copy of inquiry report was not supplied to him is fortified by perusing the appellate order in which the Appellate Authority itself has recorded that copy of inquiry report has been furnished to the petitioner during the appeal proceedings and not before the Disciplinary Authority. He also submits that supplying copy of inquiry report before the Appellate Authority would not be sufficient compliance of the mandatory procedure for the reason that such action of supplying copy of inquiry report is after taking decision to penalize the petitioner with the harshest penalty of dismissal and, therefore, at appellate stage, no fruitful opportunity could has been granted to the petitioner to make a representation against the inquiry report. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that such a flaw in the inquiry proceedings was neither taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority nor by the Appellate Authority, whereas before the Appellate Authority, he raised specific ground along with supporting judgment to press his submission that not furnishing copy of inquiry report to the delinquent is fatal and the penalty order was liable to be quashed only on that basis. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thus even the Appellate Authority has decided the appeal in violation of the guidelines given under Rule 30 of the Rule of 1958. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned dismissal order as well as appellate order and submitted that at each and every stage, opportunity was [2026:RJ-JP:142] (5 of 8) [CW-12588/2011] granted to the petitioner. Copy of charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner but he did not choose to file reply to the charge- sheet. Even the Inquiry Officer also sent him notices for participating in the inquiry but he failed to do so. Even before passing the penalty order, the Disciplinary Authority sent him notices but he did not appear before the Disciplinary Authority to put forward his defence. Under these circumstances, where the petitioner who has committed serious misconduct and has also avoided the inquiry proceedings deliberately, is not entitled for any relief whatsoever. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that mere assertion that copy of inquiry report was not given to the petitioner is not sufficient to challenge the penalty order, more particularly, when copy of such report was admittedly given to the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, hence, the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to make his submissions against the findings of Inquiry Officer before the Appellate Authority but no legitimate objection with regard to fairness of the inquiry was made by the petitioner even before the Appellate Authority. Hence, neither the Disciplinary Authority, nor the Appellate Authority has committed any violation of the procedure contemplated under the Rules of 1958, therefore, this writ petition does not require any interference. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. It is an undisputed fact between the parties that copy of inquiry report was not served upon the petitioner prior to passing of penalty order dated 20.08.1991. The procedure for [2026:RJ-JP:142] (6 of 8) [CW-12588/2011] imposing major penalty upon the delinquent has been prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, where Rule 16(10) reads as under: "16. Procedure for imposing major penalties: (10) The disciplinary authority shall forward a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority a copy of the report of the inquiring authority to the Government Servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days." 14. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would make it clear that word "shall" has been used by the Rule Making Authority in the aforesaid Rule in order to make it incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to serve a copy of inquiry report upon the delinquent employee so that he may make a representation against the findings of Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report. 15. In the facts of the instant case where, in case, the petitioner could not participate in the inquiry proceedings, not furnishing copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner would certainly cause him prejudice for the reason that at least on receiving such copy of inquiry report, he would have been in a position to clarify his defence as well as to point out any defect/legal flaw in the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer. Thus, it is clear that in the instant case, not furnishing copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner has caused him prejudice. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in 1991 (1) SCC 588 has clearly held that not furnishing copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent is fatal and such violation of the procedure in itself is sufficient to vitiate the proceedings. [2026:RJ-JP:142] (7 of 8) [CW-12588/2011] 17. So far as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that copy of the inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner by the Appellate Authority, this Court is of the view that supplying copy of the inquiry report after imposing penalty is not in true spirit of Rule 16(10) of the Rules of 1958 and cannot be said to be sufficient compliance of the mandatory Rules. 18. Disciplinary Authority's failure to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent employee, prior to formulating its conclusions on guilt and proposed punishment, constitutes a grave violation of the mandatory principles of national justice and procedural safeguards enshrined in the aforesaid Rule. Providing such report only at appellate stage cannot rectify this lapse, as the delinquent employee is thereby deprived of a meaningful opportunity to address the enquiry officer's findings as well as to rebut the relied upon material in enquiry. Such representation of the delinquent against enquiry report may have an impactful influence over the Disciplinary Authority's decision making process, before the punishment order comes into picture. The Appellate Authority operates on the record of the Disciplinary Authority as its stands and has no power to cure the foundational defects which have taken place on account of non-compliance of the mandatory Rules by the Disciplinary Authority. 19. This Court also finds that the aforesaid ground specifically raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority has been diluted by the Appellate Authority merely by making an observation that copy of the inquiry report has been provided to the petitioner by the Appellate Authority. Thus, Appellate Authority has also failed to discharge its duties in the light of Rule 30 of the [2026:RJ-JP:142] (8 of 8) [CW-12588/2011] Rules of 1958 and instead of examining the penalty order at the touchstone of the Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958, the Appellate Authority rather attempted to cover the flaws, short-comings and serious irregularities committed by the Disciplinary Authority, which is totally impermissible under the Law. 20. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and in the light of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. Penalty order dated 20.08.1991 as well as appellate order dated 20.07.2009 deserves to be quashed and, are hereby, quashed and set aside. Petitioner shall be entitled for the consequential benefits only on notional basis, which shall be given to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 21. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/26